Parental Alienation (PA) deniers argue that Reunification Programs are dangerous and need to be abolished. This is such an insidious argument. Since 2010, a significant amount of research and literature has focused on this topic. Reunification programs are necessary because in separation and divorce cases where a child is severely alienated from a once loved parent, traditional therapeutic approaches grossly fail (Darnall, 2010; Fidler et al., 2013; Miller, 2013; Reay, 2011; Warshak, 2010) Families where parental alienation exist are not a matter of business as usual; entirely different therapeutic skills are needed. For example, the heads of these toxic families have been described as cult leaders (Baker, 2005). The children and other family members who refuse to be followers of the cult leader are treated with cruelty. Alienated children literally have their critical thinking taken away and are forced to align with the cult leader. This becomes a desperate survival issue for the children. They no longer understand that the rejected parent and relatives that represent one half of their heritage still love them. These rejected family members are helpless in that they are unable to help the child to maintain anything close to an objective reality about their family. Without exposure to healthy people, these children’s actions become increasingly bizarre, including accusing the rejected parent of a host of horrible behaviors that he or she has never done.

The necessity for specialized reunification programs in cases of severe parental alienation during separation or divorce is underscored by substantial scholarly research conducted since 2010 (Darnall, 2010; Fidler et al., 2013; Miller, 2013; Reay, 2011; Warshak, 2010). Traditional therapeutic methods consistently fall short when addressing the needs of families undergoing such complex dynamics.

Parental alienation within these familial contexts requires a distinct set of therapeutic competencies that diverge significantly from conventional practices. Leaders within such families exhibiting toxic behaviors have been likened to cult leaders (Baker, 2005), whereby children and other family members who oppose the dominating parent face severe repercussions. These children are often deprived of their ability to think critically and are coerced into aligning with the alienating parent—which manifests as a critical survival strategy.

Consequently, these children lose sight of the fact that the estranged parent and other relatives—who constitute half of their heritage—continue to hold affection for them. The disparaged family members find themselves powerless in counteracting these distorted perceptions, leaving them unable to restore any semblance of balanced understanding regarding their lineage.

Without interaction with emotionally healthy individuals, these children might exhibit increasingly irrational behavior. This may include levying serious unfounded accusations against the alienated parent—a testament to the profound impact parental alienation has on young minds.

These insights reinforce the need for tailored interventions designed specifically for situations characterized by intense familial discord attributable to parental alienation.

There are at least ten reasons why traditional therapeutic approaches grossly fail with these types of families. They are:

1. Cases of parental alienation tend to be highly counterintuitive to anyone who is not a specialist or subspecialist in alienation and estrangement (Miller, 2013).

2. The treatment for severely alienated children and their family members is entirely different from that of mild or moderate alienation cases (Gardner et al., 2006).

3. Numerous therapists who are not trained in the specialized techniques that these families require often fall into the trap of believing the alienating parent and the programmed child and make the egregious mistake of contributing to the problem. This phenomenon is often referred to as “third party alienation” (Garber, 2004).

4. Some therapists will team up with the alienating parent and the alienated child. The target parent is excluded. In doing so, these clinicians run the risk of creating complete family annihilation. They get so caught up in the alienator’s and child’s manipulation and delusional thinking that they lose sight of the realities of parental alienation. They may even form a strong bias against the target parent.

5. Untrained child protection workers and clinicians may not be able to accurately assess the differences between true allegations of child abuse and false allegations of child abuse which are commonly seen in severe cases of parental alienation (Sauber, 2010).

6. Parents who make false allegations of child abuse, conceivably those who are obsessively determined to annihilate the child’s relationship with the target parent, are likely to demonstrate characteristics of various personality disorders. In particular, borderline personality disorder; narcissistic personality disorder; paranoid personality disorder; or sociopathic traits (Darnall, 2010; Gardner et al., 2006; Lorandos et al., 2013; Miller, 2013).

7. In severe cases, the alienating parent and alienated child are too determined and too delusional to respond to any form of traditional therapy (Fidler et al., 2013).

8. In court-ordered as well as non-court-ordered cases, alienating parents will fire therapists who question their motives and actions. If the therapy is focused on improving the relationship between the child and the rejected parent, then the favored parent will stop the child from seeking further interventions. It is not uncommon for alienating parents to “shop around” for clinicians who will eventually buy into their delusional thinking and manipulative games.

9. In court-ordered and non-court-ordered cases, alienating parents and alienated children are typically not motivated to attend therapy. They are obsessively determined to undermine both the therapist and the therapy (Darnall, 2010; Fidler et al., 2013; Miller, 2013; Reay, 2011; Sauber, 2010).

10. In traditional therapeutic settings, no attempt is made to physically remove the severely alienated child from the toxic home environment. The therapist attempts to influence the child for one hour a week while the child continues to reside with the alienating parent for the rest of the week (Miller, 2013).

All in all, the reality is that typical or conventional office therapy is virtually never successful in severe cases, and often makes things catastrophically worse (Miller, 2013; Sauber, 2010).

Zealous PA deniers often equate “reunification camps” with “concentration camps.” This comparison is highly inappropriate and offensive. There is no recognized entity known as a reunification camp. Previously, there existed a family-oriented program in the U.S., which was designed to address such issues. However, this program ceased operations in 2020 due to challenges brought about by the pandemic, and its founders opted not to resume this specific service.

PA deniers argue that “children as young as 7 are forced into “camps” with an abusive parent and held captive until they admit that the abuse they were subjected to never happened. That’s false. Minor children are not “forced” into “camps” nor are they held captive until they admit that the abuse they were subjected to never happened. They and their families are court-ordered into reunification programs after a judge has made a decision based on lots of evidence that a child is being harmed by parental alienation. Furthermore, these children are not being forced into “camps.”

There are numerous other misunderstandings and inaccuracies surrounding the well-known four-day intensive reunification programs, which merit clarification. Due to time constraints, it’s not possible to address these in full at this moment. However, I would like to invite you to attend the 2024 Virtual International Conference hosted by Family Access – Fighting for Children’s Rights. During this event, I will be conducting a one-hour presentation titled “Understanding the Realities of a Reunification Program: Dispelling Common Misconceptions